COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union concerning the position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic
Date: 2015-01-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carrying capacity, commercial vehicle, container, electric vehicle, energy saving, international road transport, reduction of gas emissions, safety standard, technical standard, weight and size

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 12.1.2015  
COM(2015) 7 final 

2013/0105 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

concerning the 

position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of 
the Council amending Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road 
vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in 
national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international 
traffic 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
2013/0105 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

concerning the 

position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of 
the Council amending Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road 
vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in 
national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international 
traffic 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

BACKGROUND 

Date of transmission of the proposal to the European Parliament and to the 
Council 
(document COM(2013) 195 final – 2013/0105 (COD): 

16 April 2013 

Date of the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee:  

11 July 2013 

Date of the position of the European Parliament, first reading:   

15 April 2014 

Date of transmission of the amended proposal: 

Date of adoption of the position of the Council: 

N/A 

5 June 2014 

2. 

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION 

Directive  96/53/EC  establishes  maximum  dimensions  of  heavy  goods  vehicles  (HGVs)  and 
buses  in  international  traffic  and  their  maximum  weights  in  international  traffic  (Member 
States are allowed to go beyond these dimensions or weights in national traffic under certain 
conditions). 

The  main  objective  of  the  amendment  is  to  make  HGVs  and  buses  greener  and  safer  by 
allowing  derogations  on  weights  and  dimensions  in  certain  cases  and  under  determined 
conditions, where improvements are currently not feasible with the limitations set out by the 
Directive. Greener trucks are expected to bring improvements in fuel efficiency of around 7-
10%, and a corresponding reduction in emission of CO2 and GHG. Safer HGVs could save up 
to  500  lives  per  year,  mainly  among  vulnerable  users  like  pedestrians  and  bikers  in  urban 
areas. 

In particular, the Commission proposal aims to:  

– 

Facilitate the aerodynamic streamlining of vehicles: by allowing a length extension 
to design more aerodynamic cabs. These smart cabs would also increase visibility for 
the  driver  and  a  better  energy  absorption  in  case  of  an  accident.  The  proposal  also 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
authorizes the use of aerodynamic flaps attached to the rear of trailers, semi-trailers 
or trucks,  flaps  which are market-ready and increasingly in use, for example in the 
United  States.  No  increase  in  loading  capacity  is  provided  for  by  the  proposed 
Directive.  

Allow a weight increase for hybrid or electric propulsion up to 1 ton. 

Introduce  provisions  related  to  enforcement,  due  to  worryingly  high  levels  of 
overweight. The new provisions recommend the use of on-board weight sensors on 
trucks and the deployment of weigh-in-motion stations on the roads, while obliging 
Member States to carry out a defined number of checks proportionate to the traffic. 

Introduce  joint  liability  between  the  shipper  and  the  haulier  in  case  of  overweight 
during  road  transport  (where  information  provided  by  the  shipper  is  missing  or 
misleading). 

Facilitate intermodal transport of containers, by providing a derogation of up to 44 
tonnes  and  of  15  additional  centimeters  on  length  for  the  transport  of  45-foot 
containers and swap bodies in intermodal transport. 

Allow  1  additional  ton  for  buses,  in  order  to  take  into  account  the  increase  in  the 
weight of passengers and their luggage. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

In  addition  to  the  main  objectives  of  the  amendment,  as  set  out  above,  the  Commission 
proposal  also  reflected  the  clarification  provided  by  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament1  on  the  issue  of  cross-border  traffic  of  longer  vehicles  (i.e.  existing  rules  allow 
crossing  one  border  between  two  adjacent  Member  States  authorising  the  use  of  longer 
vehicles on their respective territories). 

3. 

COMMENTS ON THE POSITION OF THE COUNCIL 

The political agreement adopted by the Transport Council on 5 June 2014 supports the main 
objectives  of  the  Commission  proposal  of  enabling  the  design  of  greener  and  safer  trucks, 
while deviating on some other aspects, in particular: 

• 

• 

1 

Considerable timeframes are proposed both for the transposition of the new Directive 
(3 years) and for the implementation of the provisions of its Article 9 on the design 
of new cabs (5 years after the necessary modification of Directive 2007/46, including 
its implementing acts), in order to accommodate the capacity of investment of some 
vehicle  manufacturers.  In  the  Commission  proposal,  a  transposition  period  of  18 
months was provided for. The Commission recalls that its proposal is of an enabling 
nature, meaning that manufacturers would not be obliged to produce such cabs unless 
they believe that there would be a market for the product. The Commission considers 
that  the  proposed  long  deadlines  are  unwarranted,  as  necessary  technologies  are 
already available and the Union citizens should be able to benefit from greener and 
safer trucks as soon as possible.  

The  enforcement  pillar  proposed  by  the  Commission  to  sanction  infringements  of 
overweight  (Articles  12  and  13),  has  largely  been  rejected  by  the  Council  which 
deleted  Article  13  on  categorization  of  infringements  and  watered  down  Article  12 
on  enforcement.  For  instance,  the  Council  replaced  the  numerical  indicator  of 
preselection checks proposed by the Commission (already applied by some Member 

Letter of Vice President Kallas to Brian Simpson, Chairman of the EP TRAN committee dated 13 June 
2012. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
States) by an "appropriate level" of checks. In reality this would mean no significant 
change from the current unsatisfactory situation. In addition to accelerated road wear 
and tear leading to additional cost of maintenance, the Commission considers that the 
overweight  of  the  vehicles    compromises  road  safety  and  distorts  competition 
between  operators  who  comply  with  the  rules  and  those  who  do  not.  The  lack  of 
harmonisation  of  enforcement  procedures  and  of  the  level  of  penalties  between  the 
different  Member  States  sends  confusing  messages  to  hauliers  and  reduces  the 
effectiveness of enforcement. The Council however agreed that Member States have 
to report to the Commission on the number of checks and infringements. 

The  Council  invokes  Article 5,  paragraph 4,  second  subparagraph,  point (b)  of 
Regulation 182/2011  ("no  opinion-clause")  in  Article  10h(5)  in  its  position  of  first 
reading.  The  Commission  has  made  a  statement  recalling  that  recourse  to  this 
provision must not be made systematically but respond to a specific need to depart 
from  the  rule  of  principle  which  is  that  the  Commission  may  adopt  a  draft 
implementing act when no opinion is delivered. Given that it is an exception to the 
general rule established by Article 5, paragraph 4, recourse to second subparagraph, 
point (b) cannot be simply seen as a "discretionary power" of the legislator, but must 
be interpreted in a restrictive manner and thus must be justified. 

• 

On the other hand, the Commission welcomes the following points: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Articles  8  and  9  on  aerodynamic  features  have  kept  the  drafting  proposed  by  the 
Commission in terms of both objective and content. Despite the fact that the Council 
replaces the proposed delegated acts by implementing acts and limits them to Article 
8, the Commission can agree to this approach, in view of the work of an expert group 
the Commission has created, to detail and define the technical content of these acts. 
The content of the  delegated acts provided for in Article 9 could be incorporated in 
an  update  of  the  Regulations  on  type  approval  of  vehicles  under  Directive 
2007/46/EC.  In  Articles  8  and  9,  the  Council  has  made  clearer  the  role  of  the  type 
approval legislation (Directive 2007/46/EC, Regulations 661/2009 and 1230/2012). 

The  introduction  of  joint  liability  between  shipper  and  haulier  for  the  transport  of 
containers. 

The extension of the scope of the proposed additional weight allowance for electric / 
hybrid  vehicles  to  alternatively  fuelled  vehicles,  to  accommodate  the  extra  weight 
needed for these alternative technologies. 

The  Council  has  adopted  a  new  definition  of  the  intermodal  transport  operation 
which  appropriately  addresses  the  specificity  of  waterborne  transport.  This  new 
definition would be applicable for the derogation of 15 additional centimetres and 44 
tonnes for 45-foot containers and swap bodies. 

The Council has increased to 19.5 tonnes the weight allowed for 2-axle buses (500 
kg more than the weight set forward in the Commission proposal) to also handle the 
increase  of  weight  due  to  mandatory  onboard  systems  (Euro  VI  class,  safety 
equipment). 

With  regard  to  cross-border  traffic  of  longer  vehicles,  the  Commission  takes  note  of  the 
diverging opinions between Member States, and of the decision of the Council not to modify 
the  text  of  the  current  Directive.  The  Commission  can  accept  the  compromise  to  delete  the 
provisions  of  the  corresponding  Article,  thus  maintaining  the  status  quo  of  the  current 
Directive.  The  Commission  issued  a  statement  confirming  its  interpretation  concerning  the 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
cross border traffic of longer vehicles, as set out already in the abovementioned letter of VP 
Kallas to Mr Simpson.  

4. 

CONCLUSION 

The  Commission  considers  that  an  update  of  the  legislation  on  weights  and  dimensions  of 
heavy  goods  vehicles  and  buses  is  crucial  for  the  realization  of  the  objectives  of  reducing 
emissions  of  greenhouse  gases.  Not  only  will  new  cabs  be  more  aerodynamic,  but  enlarged 
cabs  will  also  allow  introducing  in  the  future  vehicles  with  new  equipment  improving  fuel 
efficiency.  Similarly,  the  Commission  believes  that  the  new  designs  will  allow  the 
introduction  of  safer  trucks,  helping  to  save  lives  in  urban  areas  in  low-speed  accidents 
involving  heavy  vehicles.  For  these  reasons,  the  Commission  considers  that  it  would  be 
contrary  to  the  interests  of  the  Union  citizens  to  wait  for  a  number  of  years  before 
manufacturers introduce the new designs, which are, to a large extent, ready for deployment. 
The  Commission  is  of  the  view  that  those  issues  deserve  to  be  addressed  during  the 
negotiations between the co-legislators. 

EN 

5 

   EN